[Peace-discuss] Don't vote for a war candidate, (was AWARE table)

[Ken Urban]

Got these in the inbox and they express my opinion nicely:

Ken

from COUNTERPUNCH:

July 20, 2004

Banking on Your Desperation
The Bush / Kerry War Ticket
By STAN COX

Like tens of millions of American voters, I am desperate to see
President Bush out of the White House. But I'm not voting for John
Kerry. I'm not that desperate.

When it comes to the centerpiece of the Bush presidency -- the invasion
and occupation of Iraq -- Kerry is taking a more belligerent line than
even Bush himself. On July 16, he told the Wall Street Journal that he
would be less likely than Bush to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq anytime
soon, and that, if he were elected, the occupation would continue at
least through his first term in office.

When asked how many additional troops should be deployed Iraq, Kerry
said that once in office, he would "sit with the generals" and discuss
the size of the increase. Earlier, he had told Defense News that he
would add two divisions to the current 10-division army -- an increase
of 40,000 troops -- while continuing reseach and development of the Star
Wars missile defense/corporate welfare system and, not surprisingly,
raising the overall military budget.

At a press conference also on June 16, Kerry endorsed the two most
controversial elements of Bush's foreign policy: first-strike war and
unilateralism. He asked, "Am I prepared to go get them before they get
us if we locate them and have sufficient intelligence?" and answered,
"You bet I am." He later added -- still in the classic Bush mode -- "I
will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do and I will
never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect
our nation".

The Kerry team has even managed to banish criticism of the Iraq war from
the Democratic Party's 2004 platform. They forced the backers of antiwar
challenger Dennis Kucinich to accept instead the statement that "people
of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in
Iraq."

In moving closer to, and in some cases beyond Bush's policies, Kerry is
ignoring his own party's rank and file. A recent New York Times / CBS
poll found 56% of Democrats agreeing that our troops should "leave Iraq
as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable," while only
38% believed we should "stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure
Iraq is a stable democracy."

The Kerry Democrats' refusal to criticize the war in their party
platform is puzzling, since polls over the past month have shown that a
majority of Americans believe we should never have invaded Iraq, and
that fully 60% believe we should not attack another country unless it
attacks first.

John Kerry has given me no choice but to vote against both him and Bush.
In doing so, I refuse to be charged with single-issue voting. A
presidential candidate who insists on a long-term U.S. occupation of
Iraq is saying that he is not serious about curing our addiction to
Middle Eastern oil or the development of renewable energy. A candidate
who is willing to spend billions of dollars on Iraq (and, he is hinting,
on other wars) in each and every month of his presidency is not serious
about reducing the Bush budget deficits or about addressing domestic
crises in health, education, and the environment.

A candidate who won't discuss a timetable for ending America's military
occupation of Arab lands is hardly going to stop supporting Israel's
occupation forces and settlements in the West Bank and Gaza (and Kerry's
positions have become almost indistinguishable from Bush's on that issue
as well.)

And a candidate who wants to continue sending the sons and daughters of
working people to fight a war for, in his words, Iraq's "stability and
security" (pointedly leaving out Bush's rhetoric about democracy) is
less interested in the lives of people than in the profits of
corporations.

Across the country, as always, good Democratic candidates can be found
at the local, state, and congressional levels. But at the top of the
ticket, as always, there's a timid fellow struggling to let as little
daylight as possible pass between him and his Republican opponent.
Voting dutifully against Reagan, against Bush I, against Dole, and
against Bush II over the past two decades has not brought us better
Democratic candidates, only worse Republicans.

Now we see close to 900 American troops dead in Iraq, with more than
5000 maimed. At least 11,000 Iraqi civilians haved died so far, and
their country is in chaos. All of the rationales for having invaded Iraq
lie in shambles. Despite it all, John Kerry is unwilling to condemn this
mad adventure; in fact, he's telling us that he's thirsty for more.

He thinks I'm desperate enough to vote for him anyway. But he's wrong.

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer living in Salina, Kansas. He can
be reached at: t.s at cox.net







July 20, 2004

An Open Letter to Dr. Erhenreich
It's Over Barb!
By CHRIS RANDOLPH

How unfortunate that you have chosen to continue the pseudo-liberal
smear campaign against Ralph Nader as both a candidate and man in the
pages of that stalwart progressive publication The New York Times. I see
you were given column space because Thomas Friedman has taken leave to
write another awful book in praise of Mammon. I hope you understood the
assignment was to write a column in your own words and not in Friedman's
by proxy; having seen the results I can't tell which your aim was.

Having dutifully done the dirty work of right wing extremists under
cover of a lefty rubric in America's newspaper of record, I can only
hope the next time they let you write something for the Op-Ed page you
can squeeze in a word for the downtrodden.

How unfortunate also that Nader decided to run for president without
consulting you first. If it makes you feel any better, he didn't consult
me either, and I also voted for him in 2000. In looking over the US
Constitution, it appears he isn't actually required to ask permission
from either of us.

Nader also failed to ask our permission to co-found four additional
progressive and reformist organizations in the past 4 years, including a
champion (Democracy Rising) of your apparent candidate of choice, Dennis
Kucinich.

I see that Representative Kucinich has predictably failed in his attempt
to use his campaign to nudge the Democratic Party platform into
inclusion of a withdrawal strategy from Iraq, or even a statement that
one is desirable. Shockingly he has also failed to persuade the DNC to
include a simple statement - in the midst of an increasingly unpopular
war in an election year - that our illegal invasion is an error based
upon a series of lies.

The only function of Kucinich now, one in which you seem eager to join,
is that of shepherd bringing compliant liberal sheep back into the fold.
You do so for the DLC and John Kerry, an entity and man with which your
readers and supporters have nothing in common. It's a sad day when one
of the best-known liberals in America shills for a billionaire war hawk.
It's sadder still when she writes a well-regarded book on poverty then
turns around to skewer a man fighting for the living wage and universal
healthcare on behalf of a man who voted for No Child Left Behind and
welfare "reform."

Which of Kerry's progressive causes energizes you to the extent that you
need to mock Nader in a most public forum? Is it his desire to spend a
half trillion dollars on Reagan's lunatic Star Wars plan? Is it his
desire to better manage the Bush war in Iraq, for which he voted, and to
expand it to include NATO, which Bush has yet been unsuccessful in
doing? Are you drawn by the Democratic Party's failure in the aftermath
of the last election to stand up for voting rights of African-Americans,
or is it more the attempts of the party to keep anyone from voting for
Nader this time around? Perhaps as a self-described feminist you're
drawn to Kerry's willingness to appoint anti-choice judges to the
federal bench? His attacks on welfare mothers? His description of his
position on gay marriage being similar to Dick Cheney's?

After, Dr. Ehrenreich, asking a man to drop out of a race, especially in
a mocking fashion, is not to be done lightly. Surely you have some
explanation for why John Kerry and his DLC buddies have excited you so,
and we here in your book-buying base would love to hear it.

I see you blathered on for a bit about how George W. Bush is a bad man
who scares foreign children. It's worth noting that the party you're
supporting voted unanimously in the Senate to do those naughty things.
An honest person also has to take note that civilians were killed in
Iraq by a 20:1 ratio by Kerry's colleagues the Clinton Adminstration
over the Bush Administration, not by lack of trying on the part of the
latter. What is to be made, then, of Kerry's advisor and shadow cabinet
member Madeleine Albright, infamous in the Arab world for her statement
that the precalculated slow murder of hundreds of thousands of children,
elderly and infirm was a "price we think is worth it?" Surely she makes
foreign tots a bit uneasy, no?

I should also note that civil liberties at home didn't simply
"evaporate," but were voted down, in large part by Democrats. You should
ask your new beau John Kerry about that, not simply because authored
parts of and voted for the PATRIOT Act, but because he also voted for
the wretched 1994 crime bill and 1996 Effective Death Penalty Act. I
wish that you spent one eighth the venom in attacking Kerry on that
which you do on Nader for having the temerity to oppose the process
which produces such enormities.

As for the Reform Party, you may note that they have good, decent and
just positions on the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, corporate welfare as a whole and
they also oppose the war in Iraq. If this makes them "paleo-right
wingers" - I would say it simply makes them honest conservatives in
favor of clean government - what is your term for the Democratic Party
which is on the opposite side of the fence on all of those issues?

It's also worth noting, if you want to trash Nader for not supprting the
Greens (which is it, do you want this party running candidates or not?)
that Nader appeared at over 30 fundraisers for them in the past 4 years.
How many have you done?

I'm sorry, Dr. Ehrenreich, that you can no longer tell the difference
between people who fight to help the downtrodden workers you slummed
with for a bit and the people who habitually abuse their trust for
personal gain. On the whole I'd rather have you retire to the beach than
Mr. Nader. Perhaps it's your turn to crank up the Led Zep, roll yourself
some of that reefer you're so keen on (what are Ralph and John's
positions on THAT one, again?) and leave those of us who still have a
sense of what we're fighting for alone.

Yours,

Chris Randolph 
Independent candidate, 
US Congress 1st District Pennsylvania

email: randolph_19147 at yahoo.com




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ken Urban
Assoc. Prof., Computer Science
Parkland College

Office: B129A
           (217)-353-2246
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> "jencart" <jencart at mycidco.com> 07/28/04 5:09 PM >>>
Linda,

The signs say "Vote Out Bush-Cheney"  There's (unfortunately) only one
way to do this..... 

Jenifer

--------------------------------------------------------------
The signs do not endorse the Dem ticket...they endorse
not voting for Bush...one point where all of AWARE can
probably agree, but you can take it anyway you want
to.

Linda

--- jencart <jencart at mycidco.com> wrote:
> I know what Nader "thinks" only too well.  I'm
> sticking w/ Chomsky and Zinn on this one.  This does
> not seem relevant to what I was saying about AWARE's
> latest yard signs, however.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> The Nader (and to some extent the Cobb) argument is
> that a Kerry administration would be no improvement
> over a Bush administration on the matters we care
> about, so the proper thing to do is follow Debs'
> advice, that "it is better to vote for what you want
> and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want
> and get it."  There are surely members of AWARE who
> hold this view.  --CGE
> 
> 
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, jencart wrote:
> 
> > "Vote Out Bush-Chaney" signs are opposing the Bush
> Doctrine by
> > opposing the Bush-Chaney ticket.  By extension, it
> means "Vote In
> > Kerry-Edwards," as there's no way a third party
> ticket can do this.
> > 
> > I'm personally VERY glad --tho' surprised -- that
> AWARE is supplying
> > these signs, even tho' it's an unspoken
> endorsement of the Demo
> > ticket.
> > 
> > Jenifer
> > 
> > Jenifer
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> > Of course you're right, Jenifer -- AWARE takes
> lots of positions.  I
> > think what Al meant was that as an organization it
> hadn't taken a
> > position on endorsing a presidential candidate.
> Kerry, Nader and Cobb
> > all have their supporters within AWARE, I suppose.
>  (That's what the
> > debate before the meeting on Sept. 12 is to be
> about, apparently.) But
> > AWARE has surely taken a position in opposition to
> the "Bush Doctrine"
> > -- the question is, What methods are most
> effective in opposing it?  
> > --CGE
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, jencart wrote:
> > 
> > > Hmmm..... Letters to the editor using AWARE's
> name and admiring the
> > > bright yellow signs which say REGIME CHANGE
> BEGINS AT HOME, VOTE OUT
> > > BUSH - CHANEY.  Displaying, selling, taking
> orders for the same signs
> > > @ the AWARE table.... I'd call that a position,
> wouldn't you?  It's
> > > certaining different from PEACE IS PATRIOTIC,
> UNITED FOR PEACE, NO
> > > IRAQ WAR, etc
> > > 
> > > Jenifer C.
> > >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Jenifer,
> > > 
> > > The point is that AWARE doesn't have "a
> position."
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >No argument  re Nader votes losing IL to Bush,
> Carl.   Many voters 
> > > >are concerned about the Nader effect in the
> non-safe states, afraid 
> > > >that Nader votes could throw the election to
> Bush (again?!?!)  I've 
> > > >heard that the Greens rejected Nader this time
> around (obviously) 
> > > >and, unlike Nader, are encouraging voters in
> non-safe states to vote 
> > > >Democratic, which seems in keeping w/ AWARE's
> position...
> > > >
> > > >Jenifer C.
> > >
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >But Illinois will vote Democratic in the
> presidential election.  And 
> > > >many people are troubled about Kerry's not
> being an anti-war 
> > > >candidate.  As residents of a "safe" Democratic
> state, we're free to 
> > > >vote for a candidate
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss